Stuart James #fundie

Stuart James #fundie reclaimingthemind.org

You’ll have to forgive me for saying this, but as I hail from the UK, sometimes I read of events in the US that exhibit such animosity towards Christians and Christianity, it stuns me.

This is a good case in point, in which every Christian voice is legally censored at a graduation ceremony, in order to protect one atheist family from suffering “irreparable harm” and “anxiety” should anyone utter a prayer at the ceremony.

Is this not a form of dangerous madness, or am I overreacting?

95 comments

old comment by Dan Onymous

Overreacting I think.

But, as a Christian Brit I do find America slightly odd. On the whole most people here don't care if someone prays or doesn't or what god(s) they want to pray to.

We get the occasional Daily Mail frothing-at-the-mouth article about Christmas being 'banned' just because places include Hannuka, Ramadan, Hogmanay, Diwali, Chinese New Year or anything else around December/January but nobody takes them seriously.

but then I suppose we have a state church whereas America has that separation thing. Which also seems a little odd. The puritans left because they didn't like being persecuted, set up a country with no state church and now want to persecute anyone they disagree with.

It's a funny old world.

old comment by derpmaster

Is this not a form of dangerous madness, or am I overreacting?

No, this is by the book enforcement of the Constitution. Tyranny of the majority/mob rule, which is basically what you're endorsing with this statement:

is more of a "form of dangerous madness" than following the law. This issue has been brought before the US Supreme Court numerous times (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, Engel v. Vitale, Abington Township School District v. Schempp) and the people who want school-sponsored prayer have. always. lost.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"but as I hail from the UK, sometimes I read of events in the US that exhibit such animosity towards Christians and Christianity, it stuns me."

Liar. One thing that stuns Americans - as I can categorically state without fear of contradiction - as has happened a couple of times with friends from the US who have gone shopping with me, and I've pointed out to them this:

image

Their minds just couldn't allow them to accept the notion that such a product name even existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28food%29

The same way my mind simply won't allow me to contemplate the notion of even thinking of acknowledging the existence of an invisible magic sky fairy that doesn't exist.

"Is this not a form of dangerous madness, or am I overreacting?"

Madness? THIS IS DRAMA-QUEENERY! [/King Leonidas, "300"] X3

--EDIT--

@Nicole

"Apparently, Stuart James hasn't heard of religious trauma syndrome"

There is now a medically-recognised psychological affliction - that affects Japanese people in particular - known as 'Paris Syndrome':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6197921.stm

There is even a trauma counsellor at the Japanese embassy in Paris, employed just to handle said cases of extreme 'culture shock'.

If he were alive today, Freud could write a paper, nay a doctoral thesis, about it. Food for thought, for any psych majors here in FSTDT.

old comment by Xotan

"You’ll have to forgive me for saying this, but as I hail from the UK, sometimes I read of events in the US that exhibit such animosity towards Christians and Christianity, it stuns me. "

- You are easily stunned. Take an aspirin.

"This is a good case in point, in which every Christian voice is legally censored at a graduation ceremony, in order to protect one atheist family from suffering “irreparable harm” and “anxiety” should anyone utter a prayer at the ceremony."

- it is not every Christian voice. It is every religious voice regardless of the creed, denomination or religion. It is not censorship as such. It is the application of the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution. There is no need to be horrified. The churches do not pay taxes, so they should have no political rights. The schools are funded out of taxes, so religion should have no place there. Par contre, in a religious run/funded school, teachers and students can pray as they wish. Students in state schools are also free to pray privately, or as a public act, in their churches. There is no repression of religion. Witness the hate of the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Is this not a form of dangerous madness, or am I overreacting?"

- You are grossly over-reacting. Your beloved UK has an established church that for centuries disadvantaged those who were of other Christian denominations. Even yet the members of the Royal family cannot marry a Catholic. Shiny, shiny mirror!

old comment by David B.

If a muslim were to stand up at one of these ceremonies and try to lead everyone in an islamic prayer, they would likely be heckled, jeered at and shouted down.

Even on the off chance that they weren't, there would be no end of bellyaching from the Christians in the audience about how they were uncomfortable, didn't know where to look, felt it was totally inappropriate or was upsetting, insulting and shouldn't be allowed.

That's pretty much how every non-Christian feels when a Christian student tries to turn the ceremony into a revival meet.

If a student wants to thank God for them passing, I could not care less. Though perhaps if it was all God's doing it should be his name on the diploma. But when they want to get everyone else to join in thanking their god, they are not being inclusive, they are abusing a popular majority position to penalise and marginalise the minority.

If that's the kind of message a student wants to send at their graduation, then perhaps they need to go relearn basic humanity and shouldn't be graduating at all.

old comment by Gloria

Yes, it's madness. The extremes people will go to to make a point about the inclusion or non-inclusion of prayer are various events is quite simply ridiculous, and for some reason this seems especially prevalent in the US.

That said, yes, you're over-reacting. The world is not going to end because students were not allowed to pray in their graduation speeches. I don't believe for a minute that the Shultz' son is going to be irreparably harmed by someone saying a prayer at his graduation, but I also don't believe for a minute that the other kids are going to be damaged by not having one.

@ Murdin et al.

The problem is that the ruling would prevent individual students from praying or encouraging prayer during their own personal speeches. Now I would never in a million years dream of asking an entire graduating class of mixed religions to pray with me, and I can certainly see why people would be upset by that - but if for some reason I were to go mad and do such a thing, it would be me doing it, not the school. And if someone wants to get up and thank God by themself, for themself, they should be allowed to. This is why his ruling was overturned - because the appeals court was not convinced that individual students' personal, non school-approved speeches could be considered government sponsored.

@ Dan Onymous

The image of the puritans as fleeing persecution is, at best, twisted. When you look at what happened when they did get power in Britain, it seems more likely they were upset about not getting to persecute everyone else.

old comment by Passerby

Overreacting.

Official endorsement of a particular religion by any arm of the government, (I.E. a publicly funded school,) is prohibited by the constitution as a means to combat religious customs being written into state law and abused to persecute those who do not follow the endorsed faith.

I realize that the Protestant Church is tied inextricably to British government without ending up a tyrannical totalitarian theocratic dictatorship quite like Afghanistan, but keep in mind that I was just able to use Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a legitimate comparison.

I hate to open such deep wounds, but think of the sheer levels of animosity and violence between Protestant Brits and the largely Catholic Irish. People kill over something as trivial to me as the state-endorsed religion. There's the larger issue of sovereignity battles, of course, but the shouting I hear before the fistfights start almost always involve the rival churches.

old comment by Atheissimo

Oh this kind of stuff happens in the UK all the time too. Obviously, we don't have separation of Church and State so it's legal for all religions to be officially represented in schools and use state property for their events

However, there have been several recent cases in which staff members have sued companies like British Airways when they reprimanded them for wearing jewellery when that jewellery happened to be a cross. Never mind that I couldn't wear a locket or whatever for the same reason, if it's a cross it MUST be religious persecution.

And that bus driver who got fired for refusing to drive a bus with that 'There is no God, just get on with life...' advert on the side. If I happened to hate Coke and got fired for refusing to drive a bus with their advert on it I don't think it would cause a fuss.

old comment by breakerslion

@#1296938
Stuart James

"As a Federal Appeals Court overturned this judge’s ruling, does that not make you guys wrong in legal terms anyway?"

Um, not necessarily. Many judges in this country are senile old conservative fuckwits with delusions of grandeur. There are overly liberal fuckwits too, just to be fair about it. For the individual plaintiff and/or defendant, it can be a crapshoot. Rulings are often arbitrary, or based on emotional appeals, legal technicalities (such as jurisdiction or procedural errors), or better-argued positions. This case, or one like it, could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they could decline to rule simply by declining to hear the case. Usually an appeals ruling of this nature voids the first ruling, then the case gets kicked back down to a lower court to be re-heard. Usually there is no point in pursuing at that time because the event has already taken place. This is known as an end-run. Justice is in no way served, and a law that some find odious has failed to be interpreted or implemented within any meaningful time period. So who is wrong?

old comment by

School didn't endorse the prayer. It allowed the Valedictorian to SAY a prayer during her speach

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe. More specifically, the majority opinion:

The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman.[2] It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

Prayer led by a student? Check.
School sponsored event? Check.
Public address system? Check.

Sounds like school-endorsed prayer to me. So let's review: who tried to endorse Christian prayer? This school. Who funds schools? State and local taxpayers. Let's call a spade a spade: prayer led by school employees or at school sponsored events requires that taxpayers subsidize religious expression. This judge and family made the right call, no matter how hard it was.

old comment by ConservativeCommunist

Remember, the UK has a State Religion.

And to be honest, How the FUCK does saying a prayer at a graduation hurt an atheist? seriously, thats the kind of attitude that KEEPS people like me who otherwise could give a damn about what atheists do or dont believe in, saying "Fuck You" atheists.

Regardless of whether its constitutional or not; (one judge on one court isnt definitive), really where is the harm in doing so? did the schoolthreaten the agnostic with no diploma if they didnt pray? Did the students threaten to beat the agnostic up? Where is the coercion in being in the same God Damn room where a prayer is said?

Ill tell you what if the kid felt pressure before, its going to be a world worse now when people find out, or people who know whom the jack ass who has to make every one else do what they want, is. Call me a fundie, banhammer me, i dont care, bu tthis really pisses me off. Its a lot easier NOT to listen, or to NOt say something then go around suing the majority into having to take it up the ass for a hypersensetic minority.

If theres no gun, no implied threat for not participating in the prayer then Shut up.

Sorry for the outburst, but damn, how is one supposed to see atheists as decent people when all they do is impose their hypersensitive ultra PC crap on everyone else?

Like what this guys said, its legal censorship no matter how you see it, paint it how you want but thats what it is.

old comment by katie5000

You’ll have to forgive me for saying this, but as I hail from the UK, sometimes I read of events in the US that exhibit such animosity towards Christians and Christianity, it stuns me.

From what I understand, the Church of England is an official, state-endorsed institution that has become very much a part of the culture of England over the centuries. Because of this, people don't find it all that unusual to have some religious ceremonies/rituals in state affairs (although these days, they seem to be more traditional historical relics than anything).

In the US, by contrast, there has never been an official state-sanctioned church. The country was deliberately set up that way by its founders in response to the various religious conflicts that had torn up Europe since the Reformation. Anyway, the logic went that if there was no official church, then nobody could be persecuted for believing the "wrong" way and, by extension, committing treason. Presidents can retain their own personal set of beliefs, but they cannot impose them on the government or the populace via the government.

There is one more thing, and that's regarding high schools. The US Government, through taxes, pays for an extensive system of public schools that cover all 12 years of a person's education. These public schools, since they are basically provided by the government, have to remain religiously neutral because the government itself has to remain religiously neutral. Now, because of cultural and political tradition in America, there are people in the US who would not be expecting a prayer at a government-funded public high school, and would not find it appropriate.

old comment by Gloria

@ Alencon

I direct your attention to the posts made by Headache, myself, and Professor M on page 2. Your condescension is cute, but unnecessary.

@ katie5000

I am not in the UK, so I may be totally wrong, but my understanding is that it is the exact opposite. The CoE may be culturally embeded, but it's not nearly as popular in terms of actual followers as Christianity in the southern US, and the idea of making a fuss about its inclusion, or lack thereof, in a secular ceremony would be weird to most people, because they just don't care as much as people do in the States. The impression I get is that it's a much more secular society overall than America. The whole problem here is that these people, in the US, did expect a public prayer at their graduation, and were ticked off that someone tried to prevent it.

old comment by dionysus

@ConservativeCommunist

Regardless of whether its constitutional or not; (one judge on one court isnt definitive), really where is the harm in doing so?

Don't just brush the constitutionality of it aside like it's nothing. That's the whole damn issue!

If theres no gun, no implied threat for not participating in the prayer then Shut up.

So unless there's a threat to one's life we should just fold up and ignore the Constitution? That's nice. So if the government steps in and starts banning and burning books then, so long as there is no danger of physical harm to anyone, it's kosher?

Like what this guys said, its legal censorship no matter how you see it, paint it how you want but thats what it is.

No it's not. Anyone can still pray to whatever god they like, the government just can't sponsor it. It's not like the government is arresting people for praying. However, even if we ASSUME that it's censorship, didn't you just say that it's okay to violate the Constitution so long as nobody is threatened with a gun?

old comment by katie5000

@Gloria:
I'm not actually from the UK, either. ^^; They do seem to be a lot more secular, though, but I don't know why or how they turned out that way. :/ Anyway, my previous response was directed more at the OP, who seemed to me to be rather ethnocentric, and I was trying to offer an explanation as to why somebody might take issue with a school prayer and why they could legitimately do so in the US.

@ConservativeCommunist:
"...how is one supposed to see atheists as decent people when all they do is impose their hypersensitive ultra PC crap on everyone else?"

It is not "hypersensitive ultra-PC crap" to express discomfort with a practice of dubious legality. In addition, the United States was not founded on a "might makes right" premise - being in a majority does not mean that you aren't wrong (and it sure as hell doesn't mean that you're entitled to abuse its power).

That said, I suspect you're a troll. Get out of here.

old comment by Professor M

@ Conservative "Communist" --

And to be honest, How the FUCK does saying a prayer at a graduation hurt an atheist?

Never mind the atheists -- I'm a non-Christian quasi-theist. Are you seriously saying, here, that it's entirely legitimate to demand that I participate in a ceremony devoted to demanding my own eternal torture? The eternal torture of non-believers is, after all, a fundamental Christian point of faith -- departing from this belief is an act of heresy. So any Christian prayer, except those specifically devoted to a few heretical sects, is explicitly a prayer for the eternal torture of anyone who isn't a Christian. And you think that it's legitimate for the state -- through its representatives in the public school system -- to not only conduct such a ceremony in my presence but to demand that I participate in a demand for my own eternal torture if I had the misfortune to be a student in this high school?

old comment by derpmaster

ConservativeCommunist I don't give two shits if people pray in public. Most atheists don't, and the ones that do are probably better classified as the "ultra PC pussies" you like to bring up in your posts. The problem isn't "being offended" or even "feeling threatened", really. I'm a firm believer that my freedom of speech doesn't end at your comfort zone and I've got the porn collection to back that up. The problem here, and it's a big fucking problem in the Constitutional sense, is the concept of government and/or public institutions sponsoring prayer. Really, how can you argue so vehemently when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem?

There have been plenty of people who have already tanned your ass on it but I have to bring it up again: if prayer is led by a student/faculty member/staff member/what the hell ever at a school sponsored event, then tax dollars are being used to subsidize prayer. That's it, there's just no getting around it.

Also I don't speak for atheists in general but I don't give a hot fuck whether you like me or not.

@ Professor M

Wow I had honestly not considered that angle.

"Now atheists, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you graduate, but Jesus has the best path to salvation of all time. The best path of all time! Seriously though you guys are hell bound. Have a great summer!"

*drops mic and walks offstage*

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

@ Headache, Gloria, and Professor M:

I do not see how you could have leapt from JSS saying that, since America has freedom of religion and no state-sponsored religion (thus these sorts of prayers should not be allowed) to thinking that he was insinuating that the USA is the only place with religious freedom anywhere. Now, Gloria and Professor M, I really do not want to lump you two in with Headache, but in this case you were definitely reading something into what JSS said that was not really there. I for one deny the existence of any Americans completely ignorant of the world outside their borders-- I've never come across such people before. ;)

old comment by Canadian Wannabe

Brendan Rizzo: Completely agree with you on Headache. His prejudice against Americans is just as bad as racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semetism, etc - and, in fact, could rival that of some of the fundies' quotes on this site.

That being said, unfortunately, there is a disturbing vocal minority of Americans who act as if America is the only country that matters - and that's a major embarrassment to the rest of us Americans. We want for the vocal minority to please Stop Being Stereotypical.

I don't know what bugs me word, anti-American nutjobs like Headache or the vocal minority of Americans who make the rest of us look bad. Both groups of people are Not So Different.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Me confused. I thought the UK did not have these sorts of issues because no one cares."

Thus we have the Church of England (emphasis added):

Harry Blackitt: 'That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...'

-Graham Chapman, post-"Every Sperm is Sacred", "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life"

"Or am I wrong?"

Speaking as a Brit meself (well, I was the last time I checked!) *looks down trousers*

...nope, you're not wrong there.

"But let's please avoid the No True Scotsman Brit fallacy here"

I'm a Yorkshireman. I know the words to "On Ilkla' Moor Baht 'at", I'm careful with me cash, I'm wont to moan about nothing in particular. Yet, I drink cold beer, I'm yet to wear a flat cap, and I don't keep coal in the bath. Is there such thing as 'No True Yorkshireman'?!

(*reaches down front of trousers*)

...an' will yer stop faffin' abaht in us trousers, yer bloody daft ferret; see thi' by 'eck, tha' knows?! Eee, well I'll go t' foot of our stairs! Mutha, 'ave y' 'eard abaht Bert Bickersdyke, dahn t' road? 'Appen 'e's bought 'imseln a new Spear & Jackson No.3 coal shovel, wi' a ma'ogany 'andle & a nickel-plated scoop! Bloody 'ell 'e must be made o' money?! Eee, bloody rickets is givin' us gyp again! 'Appen us'll jus' go down t' town 'all and 'ave a quick skein at t' rain gauge, see if it's gonna be sunny on t' morrer (will it 'eck as like?!). On t'way back 'ome, I'll rustle us up some scran - y'fancy haddock & chips, mutha? Salt & vinegar, y'say? Chipolata an' a pickled egg an' all? Wi' extra scraps?! Eee, y'must 'ave worms mutha, th' way y' pack it in an' all!

(*Dvorak's 'New World Symphony' plays; 'Hovis' advert music*)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=6Mq59ykPnAE

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/ridley-scotts-hovis-advert-is-voted-alltime-favourite-476424.html

(*reaches inside trousers again*)

...an' will yer stop nibblin on me nadgers, y'bloody ferret?!

old comment by Anon-e-moose

And further my point, re. post-"Every Sperm is Sacred", if right-wing fundies refer to themselves as Protestants, why are trying to out-catholicise the Roman Catholic Church, re. abortion and birth control?!

As these are purely Catholic doctrines, surely - as Protestants - fundies should be violently opposing Popery in all it's vile forms. Therefore the Religious Right in the US should be hyper-pro-Choice, and encouraging condoms, IUDs, pessaries, the Pill, Femidoms etc.

...oh, and as 'Suicide is a Sin' is purely Catholic doctrine too, therefore what's stopping the likes of Ruptured Retards accelerating that lovely (C)Rapture, hmmmmm?! Go ahead. Drink the special Kool-Aid, Raptards. 909 people at Jonestown can't be wrong.

Just goes to prove what I always say: Hypocrisy. It's hardwired into the DNA of the Religious Right.

@Renon

"My apologies for any British person offended at the term "limey"."

Speaking as a Brit, I'm not offended in the slightest. Especially when you consider that the British navy later discovered that - in combatting scurvy - limes were only half as effective; lemons were far better (they contain twice the amount of Vitamin C, compared to limes).

Ergo, we Brits should be referred to as 'Lemonies' QED. X3

Great isn't it, how a mere insult can be annihilated by facts:

image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28food%29

It certainly fucks up the trolling* power of those on certain image boards, such as 4chan; i.e.: 'So I'm a tasty, traditional, nutritious and wholesome foodstuff? Why, thank you for the compliment!' >:D

*- Also 'Fag': here in the UK, it's the slang term for cigarette. Many chortles can be generated - if there's an American present - when one Brit asks another 'Can I bum a fag from you?!' X3

old comment by Professor M

Wow, people here on FSTDT are really not helping my impression of my fellow Americans. I thought that at least here we would have people willing to stand on principle instead of saying "aw, hell, the Constitution's just a piece of paper -- if public schools want to turn graduation into a public Constitution-burning, forcing anyone who wants to graduate to go along while publicly affirming their conviction that they deserve eternal torture, who cares?" Well, I care, for one -- as, apparently, do at least some of the students. More than just the ones who are willing to stand up and take shit not only from the fundies but from people who should know better, most likely.

I used to think that atheist Americans tend to be a bit more American than most Christians. Now it seems that even most of the atheists and agnostics don't give half a shit.

old comment by Amadaun

You can talk about your faith in your speech. You can call for a moment of silence after heavily implying that you intend to spend it praying.

As long as you are speaking in an official capacity for a government institution, you don't get to tell people to pray. Much less what they should be praying. That is the law's line, and while it's kind of like the kosher practice of refusing to combine any milk and meat so there is no chance of breaking the 'mother's milk' rule, the line is there to make sure we never slip into a theocracy.

It's like these people don't take words seriously.

Of course, I was one of those kids who gave trouble in elementary school about the daily pledge of allegiance because I knew what a pledge was though I wasn't sure about allegiance, and I wasn't about to be coerced into giving a promise I didn't even understand. Especially when it had God in it. Being duty bound by my own oath or made a liar are a terrible set of options.

People should not have their options so reduced by government fiat, ever.

Stuart James #fundie reclaimingthemind.org

95 comments

Confused?